 |
| Attorney Avi Schick, Partner - Troutman Sanders |
“Our party doesn’t talk about [religion] as much.” The reason for this, he said, is that Democrats are committed to the separation of Church and state, and that the party wants to stand for all people, regardless of their religion.
I like Mayor Buttigieg. As a politically conservative leaning voter, I do not agree with him on many of the issues. I do think though that he is one of the more intelligent
and well informed Democrats of all those running. However, I think his lofty explanation
of why his party doesn’t talk about religion is not the real reason they don’t. All one has to do to is look at some of the current values of the general culture. Many
of them are hardly religious. Some of them are anti religious.
That there has been an assault on religion is something
that should be obvious even to the casual observer. In our day it seems that whenever there is a conflict between religious values and secular values, the cultural mindset is to discard the religious values.
This was recently demonstrated when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that it
was discriminatory for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple because
of his religious beliefs. That decision was affirmed by the state’s lower
courts upon appeal. Fortunately the Supreme Court ruled that the baker’s first amendment’
religious right were ignored by the
Colorado Civil Rights Commission when they made that ruling.
While that case ended up with the right decision, it is more
than clear that the current sense of ethics in our culture does not place much
value on religion. As I have said many times before, religious values are
increasingly seen as archaic. If not for the first amendment, God only knows
what would happen to those of us that consider biblical values as our moral and
ethical guide.
This is not the first time our religious values were
challenged. Back in the 80s a friend of mine by the name Simcha Goldman who was a clinical psychologist became a commissioned officer in the US Air
Force. As an Orthodox Jew he wore a Kipa.
Long story short - that was against Air
Force regulations. He was ordered to remove it. But instead he decided to fight
it on first amendment grounds. The case was eventually heard by the Supreme Court. in a 5-4 decision they ruled against Goldman. Siding with the majority, the Chief Justice said that the first Amendment did not apply to the military the same way it did to the civilian population. Congress apparently saw the injustice and changed the law. If I understand correctly there is now a Kipa available
that is part of the standard military uniform for those who request one.
Which brings me to an op-ed by Avi Schick in the Wall Street Journal based on what is now happening in Canada:
(T)he National Assembly of Quebec passed a law barring public employees from wearing religious clothing or symbols at work...
The Quebec law comes at the end of a decade that has seen increasing demands across North America for religious freedom to give way when it conflicts with other rights. The new law goes a step further by demanding that religious liberty be sacrificed simply to avoid offending skeptical secularists.
Avi makes the following very cogent observation:
Those who understand how society is enriched by the full participation of religious adherents in public life must fight back. The law already has been challenged in court, but this is fundamentally a cultural battle that requires broader resistance.
And then he offers a rhetorical challenge to all the liberal
‘champions’of liberty:
Where are the celebrities announcing that they will refuse to perform in Quebec? What about corporate leaders and their threats not to do businesses with intolerant local governments? When will leaders from other provinces and elsewhere in North America announce a ban on traveling to Quebec for official business? Where are the hashtags expressing outrage at state-sponsored discrimination and solidarity with its victims?
I think the answer is obvious. To the liberal left, religious
rights are not worth their time and effort – even if they might agree that those
rights are being denied in cases like this. I think that is because they do not really value religious
values at all even if they do pay lip service to it.
I don’t know if Canada has constitutional protection of freedom of religion. If it does, I don’t know how Quebec could ever have passed such a
law.
Thankfully the US does have such protection. It was founded on the principles of
freedom ensconced in the first amendment. Unlike any other major country that
has an official religion. The US has none. We respect the free
exercise of religion - without any government interference. Unless the first amendment is
repealed, I expect that the highest court in the land will continue to see to
it that this is honored in full.
The first amendment is the definition
of freedom. With respect to religious freedom it includes a ‘separation’ clause and ‘free exercise’ clause. If that is ever modified it will upend the very principles upon which this country
was founded. Which would mean - the end of America as we know it. I therefore doubt this will ever happen. But it
won’t be for a lack of trying by a left that increasingly sees religion as archaic. To put it the way Avi did:
Ordinary Canadians and Americans also should make their voices heard. Religious liberty will wither if the bigoted assumptions behind Quebec’s actions aren’t challenged. Those who want religion stamped out of public life will be emboldened if the opposition is expressed exclusively on legal grounds. The moral basis for protecting religious rights must be front and center in this battle.
“Accommodation of religiously inspired conduct is a token of respect for, and a beacon of welcome to, those whose beliefs differ from the majority’s,” wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals almost 20 years ago. “Obeisance differs from respect; to demand the former in the name of the latter is self-defeating. It is difficult for us to see why a Jew may not wear his yarmulke in court, a Sikh his turban, a Muslim woman her chador, or a Moor his fez.”
There is a long history of American leaders standing up for religious freedom across the world. Now the abuse is occurring close to home. Some two dozen candidates are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Imagine if one of them had the courage to speak up in defense of the faithful across the border.
